On Saturday, August 27, 2005, 12:33:53 AM, L. wrote:
LDB> On Friday 2005-08-26 18:25 -0400, Orion Adrian wrote:
>> Is there something that prevents you from adding links to figures that
>> include the full documents the fragments come from while leaving the
>> example text alone. This /would/ require minimal changes as it doesn't
>> affect the text around the example, just the example.
LDB> Do you consider this a higher priority than developing a good test suite
LDB> for CSS2.1 and working on CSS3? Resources that go into one aren't
LDB> available for the other.
Personally I wouldn't - a good test suite for CSS 2.1 that covers the
CSS2 material not in CSS1 is a high priority.
Then again, I consider the effort of extracting out the examples into
separate files and checking them for well-formedness (XML) or validity
(HTML) to be not particularly great. Its much easier to check if they
are in separate files.
As an indication, SVG WG did this (in response to a comment from BjÃ¶rn,
who complained about some invalid or non-well formed examples) and it
made it much easier to check them. Yes it was a little extra work, but
improved the quality.
LDB> I certainly don't. And if enough people disagree who are
LDB> well-enough aware of the W3C process to impede progress by repeatedly
LDB> submitting comments like this, then I think CSS should be standardized
LDB> elsewhere so that we can use the resources available for specification
LDB> development more effectively.
Its probably rash to assume that a lot of comments are an attempt to
slow down the spec. They are more likely a way to get higher quality and
to deal with poor matches between one spec and the next. The comments I
submitted, for example, are points of detail - important details, but
not a request to slow down or stop or anything like that.
Developing CSS elsewhere would be a good way to ensure that it didn't
meet the needs of WAI, I18N, CDF, SVG, XSL, MWI BP, and so on.
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
W3C Graphics Activity Lead